View Full Version : Has Clarke been telling the entire truth???

04-06-2004, 09:26 AM
Clarke biggest argument has been that the current administration did very little prior to 9/11 to stop Al Qaeda and terrorism. I am sure everyone agrees hindsight is 20/20 and I am sure a few here have a certain distaste for the current admin so they hop on the bandwagon. I have no doubt, the current admin probably was not putting forth 100% of all efforts on terrorism, however I do not think it was as low on the totem pole as Clarke says it was.

Now, Clarke is telling everyone how high up Al Qadea was on the Clinton radar and how serious a threat Clinton took it. We had numerous instances of terrorism on US soil and on foreign soil against the US by the Al Qaeda and Clinton did little. Well, if we were to believe Clarke about the Clinton admin then we should be able to look at the "final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress". This document should spell out Al Qaeda and terrorism. Clarke likes to mention Al Qaeda everytime, and actually made fun of Rice when she made a face about Al Qaeda. Here is a link (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm) to a webpage that shows some of what is in this document.

Here is a quote from the beginning.... [ QUOTE ]
The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress 45,000 words long makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it. <hr /></blockquote> Now, has Clarke been telling the whole truth about the urgency under the previous admin, and the actions of the current admin? If this is supposed to be Clinton's last chance to explain the position of National Security, don't you think it would have included the group that is believed to be an urgent threat?

Personally, I think Clarke is doing his fare share of hiding all the facts and pandering. His job is to sell books, and no matter who the President is, negative books sell better. He was demoted under the current admin and he got pissed off. His motives are not that of National Security, and I am sure no one really understands all his motives but the big ones are to sell books, and bad mouth the current admin. Clarke's recent history is a great example of the poor effort of the Clinton admin to reduce terrorism and capture/punish those who terrorize. Bush's big problem was leaving this guy in office when his history is so checkered. Even in the final report of the Clinton admin, Clarke did not put in anything about Al Qaeda. So, just how much of what he is saying could be taken with a grain of salt??? My guess, all of it.